Ya know when the book came out everyone feared it and thought it would fail.
ebooks emagazines will not be mainstream as long as we dinosaurs from the industrial age are still around. After we're gone the new generation that only knows the information age, will treat the printed books like a collectible at best

Not surprising to me. Before you can subscribe to Popular Science on the iPad, you've got to know Popular Science is on the iPad.

I never knew it until I read this article, and I'm in the iBook Store and the books section of the App Store all the time.

iBook Store doesn't even have a "magazine" category. Neither does App Store. You can search directly for "Popular Science", but unless you're thinking about "Popular Science", you're unlikely to stumble across it.

Yeah I agree with you for once. We need Magazine rack section, preferably in iBookstore.

If we actually have an open internet, the cost of opening a competing web store to sell digital magazine would be much lower, which means the digital store (in this case Apple's app store) shouldn't charge nearly as much. But obviously, this is not an open OS so that's why Apple can charge the local-monopoly price. Same for Android (which is not really open either).

Like Playboy Magazine did with their WebApp sold through their "store".

Why do we "need" what we already have?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

The co-founder of Rolling Stone can't roll with he times and responds to change with "sheer insanity and insecurity and fear." What ever happened to the green goal of a paperless society that embraces trees?

Remember the days when the dot-coms were threating to send ALL brick and mortars businesses the way of the dinosaur?

Guess who is still standing?

Brick and Mortar stores.

The same analogy applies here.

The reason why the dot-coms failed going up against brick-and-mortar stores was because they thought they were going to change people's shopping habits. But it was obvious that online shopping didn't present anything new in buying when compared to physical presence as people bought using mail order, telephone sales, etc. via catalogs for over 100 years. That's how Sears became the largest retailer back in its day.

After the dot-com bust, when retailers' online operations were operational, who's businesses suffered as the economy recovered? The catalogers.

Don't listen to VCs and entrepreneurs talk about what the next big thing is. Check with customers first. Always.

But don't consider brick-and-mortars free and clear yet. As trust in online purchases grows, and the need to physically handle merchandise before purchasing wanes, particularly for commodities, a physical presence becomes less convenient for increasingly ADHD and privacy-minded consumers. Look at what online book sales are doing to the book retail industry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbi

Books, no matter how much the e-books devicer makers, electronic makers and publishers like to boast, are here to stay.

So Borders hasn't closed over 200 stores and filed for reorganization due to weakness in book sales? What was it then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbi

The same applies to magazines.

Magazines are worse than books because they're generally considered time-sensitive. While keeping a stack of magazines might be important to show social status or to pre-occupy patients in the waiting room, an increasingly green-conscious society is not as keen on tossing dead trees into the dumpster or lugging them to the mythical recycling center.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbi

Hundreds of years of acclimation to printed press will not vanquish in thin air in a matter of mear 10 years.

I don't know what part of the globe you're at, but around here most people don't have hundreds of years of experience with anything, let alone the printed press. And with almost 20 years exposure to the Internet, and the visual quality of print finally being present in online media, another 10 years should close the book on printed media for general usage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbi

The print is versatile, requires no energy, flexible (moldable), can go through storms and still survive, be somewhat water proof (after it dries), be used as a quick umbrella during rainy seasons, folded into paper airplanes, can make origamis, used as a paper football, etc etc.

Paper FTW

Living in Florida, I can tell you paper doesn't survive rain nor hurricanes well and are a hassle to salvage as well as to transport and store when it isn't serving as your umbrella.

I agree paper offers a great deal of convenience and versatility, and as the publisher of a notebook app for the Mac I'm increasing its feature set for print/paper. But digital media offers more than an order of magnitude more convenience and versatility than print.

Why should we be skeptical? Not that I expected a different response from you, but it was the magazine guys making the statements, not some vague comments made by some unidentified industry sources.

Quote: . . .said Gregg Michaelson, president and chief marketing officer of Rodale, which publishes a number of magazines on the Nook Color. When we look at the numbers across our titles were seeing about five times the number of paid subscriptions on the Nook than we see in single-issue sales on the iPad

and this:
"But since November (2010), the company (B&N) said more than 1.5 million magazine subscriptions and copies of single issues had been sold on the Nook Color."

and this:
"Meredith publishes two magazines, Family Circle and More, on the Nook Color and has plans to add more because the sales have been strong. Nook Color subscriptions are outselling the magazines Meredith publishes on the iPad, where only single-issue sales are available, by about 2 to 1."

and this:
"Hearst, which publishes O and Cosmopolitan, is selling tens of thousands of subscriptions on the device each month."

Considering that B&N has probably sold far fewer than a third as many NookColor's as Apple has iPad's, ( http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/03/29...ks-color-sold/ ) the results from the two articles I linked surely supports the argument that the Nook so far makes a better platform for the magazine publishers, delivering more results per unit sold if we go by these reports.

Goldman Sachs estimates that Barnes & Noble "now has a 27% share of the e-book market, to Amazon's 58% and Apple's 9%" and goes on to say that "The Nook has 22% of the e-reader market, compared with the Kindle's 67%. According to the report, the Nook color e-reader, introduced in October, generated 64% of the company's hardware sales in the most recent quarter".http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...FREE/110219913

Perhaps you have sources that refute what's stated in these articles, thus your skepticism?

In any case, B&N's reported early successes with magazine subscriptions is in stark contrast to the views stated in the AI article concerning iPad subscriptions. I think if magazine/newspaper subscriptions are done properly, marketed to the correct audiences, and at realistic prices, there's a significant and profitable market for e-versions.

So far B&N has been better at that than Apple going by the evidence presented.

As such, I'll disagree with Rolling Stones editor. They just haven't figured out how to get to their audience yet. That doesn't mean there isn't one, and that it can't be profitable.

As I said, and had been also said in several articles, including a couple you linked to, Apple has just now gotten its publishing act together, and there are already a fair number of subs available, or that will be soon. As far as some of those other numbers go, most are still just guesses, and suppositions.

But what isn't mentioned in these articles is whether these subs are just available on the physical readers themselves (they are not), or on the apps available for the iPad (they are). So the questions is what really matters here. Apple offers iBooks as something available for its users as an incentive to buy iPads, on which Apple makes a good profit.

On the other hand, Amazon and B&N are assumed to be selling their book readers at a loss, or at best, break-even, because they need to make money on their book, and magazine sales. Since I use all three apps for buying and reading books on my iPad, Apple wins this round.

The other problem with
Kindle and
Nook reader sales is that both companies refuse to say how many they've sold, so we have no idea. To say that the color Nook is already 64% of the companies hardware's sales means little without knowing what that means. But we do know how many iPads Apple sells.

as far as the 1.5 million goes, what percentage is subs, and what percentage is single sales? They don't say, but it matters. Until about a week or so ago, most mag single prices were $5-much too high. Now most are $2. So we'll see how that changes the sales numbers. And until that same week or so ago, there were almost no subs in iBooks at all, and the few that were there cost an outrageous amount, so it's tough to compare.

Now that pricing is more evenly distributed amongst the players, we'll see in the next couple of months or so.

And as far as you expecting me to say what I do, well, I always expect you to find something that purports to find Apple at a disadvantage. You aren't exactly fair minded.

Barnes & Noble does. They said there's "million's", which would have to be at least two million or they'd be liars.

We still don't know how many. Same thing with the Kindle. It does matter.

But then, I've subscribed to three magazines through Zinio, on my iPad. What does that count as? After all, you can't do that on either the Kindle, or the nook. I'm also waiting for a number of subs to expire, so I can subscribe to them electronically.

On the other hand, Amazon and B&N are assumed to be selling their book readers at a loss, or at best, break-even, because they need to make money on their book, and magazine sales. Since I use all three apps for buying and reading books on my iPad, Apple wins this round

Umm, wouldn't that be a point for B&N?
You can't buy magazines from the Appstore on anything but an Apple device.

And I've never seen evidence anywhere that B&N was selling Nooks at a loss. Any source for that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

as far as the 1.5 million goes, what percentage is subs, and what percentage is single sales? They don't say, but it matters. Until about a week or so ago, most mag single prices were $5-much too high. Now most are $2. So we'll see how that changes the sales numbers. And until that same week or so ago, there were almost no subs in iBooks at all, and the few that were there cost an outrageous amount, so it's tough to compare.

Why would it matter? And yes, "it's tough to compare" when Apple won't announce how many subs or individual copies it's sold. Sales figures from the Appstore trickle out only in articles like these.

[I]But to repeat my earlier claim, so far B&N seems to have done a better job for the magazine guys than Apple based on the what I've found in my searches. You still haven't posted any evidence disputing any of this either, so I'm not sure on what basis you're questioning the articles other than you just don't like the conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

Now that pricing is more evenly distributed amongst the players, we'll see in the next couple of months or so.

I completely agree that sometime in the future things could change. The mobile market is so fluid that one misstep or masterstroke can change the whole game. The Appstore might someday become the best source for magazine publishers to get results. But that time doesn't appear to be now.

In essence, just because Apple may not currently be delivering the results that publisher's are looking for doesn't mean that no one else can. B&N's NookColor might be on the right track based on what the mag execs say.

Umm, wouldn't that be a point for B&N?
You can't buy magazines from the Appstore on anything but an Apple device.

And I've never seen evidence anywhere that B&N was selling Nooks at a loss. Any source for that?

One of the links you posted said that. I don't remember which one right now. I've also read it a number of times elsewhere. These companies are interested in selling the books and magazines. The devices are just a way of doing that, which is why they have apps for iOS devices, as well as for the Mac, Windows machines, Android devices, etc. If they were so concerned about selling, and making a profit on the devices, they would not be doing that.

The fact that you can't buy iOS magazines and books anywhere else, if they're exclusive, is a point in Apple's favor as well. They get to sell tens of billions of dollars worth of iOS devices, where they make billions of dollars of profits, and these extra services help them to do that.

I'm not saying that the Nook and Kindle are bad. They are not, for what they do. But Apple isn't really interested in making a lot of money from the software, just the hardware. But Apple fullfills the first rule of business, which is to make a profit on every service and product, no matter how small. Apple has no loss leaders. So they try to make from what we read, about a 5% profit on iTunes and App Store sales. That keeps them in the black, but it's a pretty low profit margin for Apple, which made a 21.5% net margin last year.

Somehow, Amazon and B&N need to do better than that 5%. I don't know how they are doing it, but I hope they are.

Quote:

Why would it matter? And yes, "it's tough to compare" when Apple won't announce how many subs or individual copies it's sold. Sales figures from the Appstore trickle out only in articles like these.

Apple doesn't have to announce it, the magazine publishers have been announcing it, as you very well know. You don't have to try to be clever and think you're throwing my words back at me, which you seem to think you're doing half the time, because you still get it wrong.

Quote:

[I]But to repeat my earlier claim, so far B&N seems to have done a better job for the magazine guys than Apple based on the what I've found in my searches. You still haven't posted any evidence disputing any of this either, so I'm not sure on what basis you're questioning the articles other than you just don't like the conclusions.

If you read your own articles, and what I've said, you would stop bothering with that. It's only been during the past two weeks or so that the publishers and Apple have gotten together on this, and the results are just as good, if not better than what we're seeing elsewhere.

You've been on this site for a while, and you must have read the articles telling what is happening between Apple and the publishers. Don't pretend you haven't. I don't need to repeat what you've undoubtedly already read, but don't want to acknowledge.

Quote:

I completely agree that sometime in the future things could change. The mobile market is so fluid that one misstep or masterstroke can change the whole game. The Appstore might someday become the best source for magazine publishers to get results. But that time doesn't appear to be now.

In essence, just because Apple may not currently be delivering the results that publisher's are looking for doesn't mean that no one else can. B&N's NookColor might be on the right track based on what the mag execs say.

This entire field is still really new, like where the Internet was in late 1995. It's way too early to know how things will shake out. Now that B&N has been bought, what will they be doing?

Apple will remain the big cheese. Books and magazine sales are almost of no importance to them, except as how they affect sales of their devices. As iPads will sell very well, with high profits, that's what Apple cares about. And as there will continue to be several book stores on those devices, iPad users have the best of all worlds, as long as book reading is just a part of what they want to do with a device. I'm convinced that Apple will be happy with book and magazine sales as long as people aren't driven to other devices instead.

If people just want a small, light, and cheap reader, even one in B/W, that sucks with anything using color, then these $100 plus readers will do fine. Go to color, and the price more than doubles. By then, you will start looking at the $499 iPad.

You've been on this site for a while, and you must have read the articles telling what is happening between Apple and the publishers. Don't pretend you haven't. I don't need to repeat what you've undoubtedly already read, but don't want to acknowledge.

Yes, I read the issues here and on other sites. I wasn't looking for nor stating a reason why things may not be quite right yet, assuming they aren't. It would be supposition anyway. As DED might say, it's akin to vaporware if it doesn't exist in the hear and now. I simply made the argument for what is rather than what might be. We just ended up talking in two different timeframes.

As it stands now the ability of B&N to deliver results for the magazines appears to outshine Apple. But I'll agree with your point that selling magazines isn't a primary objective for Apple anyway. Probably no harm if they never sold a magazine. On the other hand B&N has to be better at it than Apple if they're to survive.

BTW, there's been no sale of B&N. There's a Liberty Media offer on the table and under consideration. But no acceptance AFAIK.

That's not actually going to help. I bookmark every page I think is important, and have them organized as well. It's not difficult. But you can't bookmark every page you read. Sometimes when you do, you get a 404 when you go back, so that doesn't always help either. I don't see how it would have helped here.

Yes, I read the issues here and on other sites. I wasn't looking for nor stating a reason why things may not be quite right yet, assuming they aren't. It would be supposition anyway. As DED might say, it's akin to vaporware if it doesn't exist in the hear and now. I simply made the argument for what is rather than what might be. We just ended up talking in two different timeframes.

As it stands now the ability of B&N to deliver results for the magazines appears to outshine Apple. But I'll agree with your point that selling magazines isn't a primary objective for Apple anyway. Probably no harm if they never sold a magazine. On the other hand B&N has to be better at it than Apple if they're to survive.

BTW, there's been no sale of B&N. There's a Liberty Media offer on the table and under consideration. But no acceptance AFAIK.

Well, as B&N had put themselves up for sale a year ago, and this has been the only Real offer, the writing is it will likely go through. The board seems to be in favor.

That's not actually going to help. I bookmark every page I think is important, and have them organized as well. It's not difficult. But you can't bookmark every page you read. Sometimes when you do, you get a 404 when you go back, so that doesn't always help either. I don't see how it would have helped here.

You can have it auto-save the contents of the page so even if it's deleted or altered you can have the original in your local DB.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Paper books, sure to stay for a long time, paper mags, whose content (apart from ads) is out of date so quickly, will gradually succumb more and more to e-tablets.

As for embracing it, the time for this is not an instant, a day, or even a year. If some publishes did not start with the trend, then how would things ever change. A forest may not start with a single acorn, but it does start with a few

Agreed, periodicals are likely to change much faster. Murdoch started the whole thing by charging online for the times, I mean otherwise no one buys the Times and it is unsustainable.